Enbrightenment

I am posting this because it is my passion. I encourage a critical analysis of my teachings. Please feel free to ask questions, or comment what you think.

http://www.************/Enbrightenment

I have published two books currently, and the 3rd is in middle of writing. Enbrightenment is not about conversion, or looking for followers. Truly, it is about recognizing the same fundamental spiritual anatomy in all of us, and practicing transcendental communion (equally) with all. No goal, nothing more than what you already are/have is needed. I fully understand that concepts and ideas are more like sign posts, and not truth in their-selves. We Are, before, we conceptualize we are. :] Enjoy and blessings.

 

I refuse to read anything on facebook but I'd still like to read your stuff if you have another link

 

Smiling as I read this...

I do, Enbrightenment @ blogspot

Made sure I updated the blog - have not been there in a while.

 

Okay, so far a critical analysis concludes you are advertising for followers.

 

You are not very analytical. Where would people 'follow' me? I'm not going to take you home, or give someone a technique to become 'enlightened'. Seekers, followers, people on a journey to truth will not find a welcome mat.

 

Followers, as in followers or students of "your teachings." You offer teachings and "encourage" analysis. Lending energy to recruiting thoughtful attention.
Is there something you think I missed, or something I've pointed out here that is not true?
Everyone teaches and teaches all the time, there are no idle thoughts.

The acceptance of truth is by invitation only.

 

There is no one to teach, fundamentally the body/mind progresses with awakening clearly as the transcendent reality of consciousness, and the idea of separate beings/consciousness with unique identities are non-sensical. There is only one. No subject or object. Sort of like a whirl pool in water, it simply realizes it is water, not a whirlpool. The whirlpool serves as a functioning body of the One and Only.

I don't want students, not looking for students - they make that choice - consider me a friend; what I want to do is to share, commune equally, through and through, wholly and bodily, consciously with every person this body/mind meets. The hand is not separate from the arm. We are one body, one consciousness. No need to perceive a Guru as one that necessarily has students. That may be a practice with people that find a heart felt communion with a person, but in that communion there is no subject object, only One. The Guru consciously relates to all as the Only, as the One. It falls upon those that turn to that person to understand what the real relationship to such a one is. The relationship one has with the Guru is not based on hierarchy. It is based on love, understanding, equality, perfect conscious communion, and great compassion for all; everything we do to another we do to our-Self.

If you realized you are fire, and upon that realization a tangible fire presence is always felt/lived, and/or consciously perceived. Furthermore, you want to share this fire with 'other' people, but they also needed to be aware/awake, and realized as the fire. Consequently, (remember this is an example: responding to the realization of fire) there is only fire and that is all that is coming alive, and all the need be taught. If fire is the realization, then one need not relate to that person as something objective, and or in a hierarchical manner. It is more like whirlpools inter-acting, there is only water, you cannot remove the whirlpools from the water.

It is important to make these things clear, and part of the reason I posted in this forum, verses others. So far, so good. :sunny:

 

Is English not your first language, because this sentence is nonsense. You said yourself you had teachings to be critically considered. There are no teachings without a teacher. We enter the ark of condition two by two, male and female, each according to their kind. If you are suggesting that human growth, that is on a vertical axis, is vegetative, (fundamentally the mind/body
progresses with awakening clearly as the transcendent reality of consciousness), then there need be no teachings. Transcendent means "beyond perception".

The idea is not nonsensical as it is based on the evidence of the body.

I regard this issue in the following way:
Reality is non-local, nor is it remote. From this absolute, all discrete systems
are abstractions.

So you are inspired to share, why?

So you realize that to share equally with all is to not share anything with anyone that you would not share with everyone. Is this what your life looks like?

The word guru comes from sanskrit meaning "revered teacher". It is the adherent that makes the guru. No need then, to claim to be a guru.

What is "love"? What is "perfect conscious communion"? Great compassion for all? Don't you know that the word compassion means to "suffer with".

Don't get me wrong, there is not one thread of satisfaction I would remove from the garment of your life and there is not one hole in it, that I would not mend if I could. You have a way to go yet in making anything clear.

 

thedope

The body is made of consciousness. You (seem from this the quote of yours) separate body from mind. This is not my understanding, nor is it the communication. If you want to talk science, then I am well aware of the metaphysics of quantum theory, and the relationship it has with relativistic metaphysics, along with the relationship of consciousness. But, that is for you to decide, and probably another, separate thread.

Communion is my life. Your interpretation is your interpretation.

Your resource please, provide link. The real source meaning of Guru is one that takes another from darkness to light. The interpretation of "from darkness to light" follows with how the Guru presents their teachings, and how the individual relates and interprets that relationship.

There is a great deal of time taken in consideration of these ideas (and there is a conscious Realization that supports the living actions of those ideas in my life), I am well aware of the idea of compassion. Love has been defined many ways, a simple definition would be living and relating to all existence through the transcendent conscious state of the eternal God.

 

I can understand where you might jump to this conclusion, but I do not own the information. My comment was regarding your assertion that the perception of separation is "nonsensical." It is not, it is rational and it's basis for conclusion is the evidence of the body. It appears that our bodies give us a private window of contention through which we view reality. Granted appearances can be deceiving but the preponderance of physical evidence suggests that no one else moves the air in that persons lungs, but that person. Is it helpful to regard this biological feedback loop as, "senseless?"

Nor mine

What if I want to just talk common sense? You are posturing here, trying to fashion an ego for me so that you can relate to it. I don't think the new age vernacular you are comfortable with, will help.

If everything is all one then the perception of isolated or independent systems, is an abstraction.

I asked for your interpretation, I am going on the statement that you made,
namely that you are inspired to share. I ask why are you inspired to share.

The word formula I presented is accurate on it's face;

To share something with one that you would not share with another, is not sharing equally with all. This statement does not require interpretation, it has clearly defined values.

Source is microsoft. The definition is for the English word "guru", not the syllabic root for the sanskrit word

You are making a distinction here that is not contrary to the definition I offered. Guru is a revered teacher, isn't that the way you would interpret someone who gave such a thing of value.

If you wish to demonstrate that the teacher and the student are equal constituents to learning, then I wholeheartedly accept that premise.

I am glad you experience success in your life. Your definition has no practical constituents in reality, no objective measurable qualities that can be communicated through the definition.

My take, reality is unconditional, everything else is respiration.

 

Hold your breath, when you pass out, the body/mind will breath on its own.

Comfortable with most, if not all vernacular. The method you see apparent in my language is not new age, it is born of a philosophical background.

The inspiration to share stems from an innate understanding of the un-necessary suffering of the body/mind that is apparent in many of the people on the planet. Your mis-understanding this the idea of sharing. This is not something objective, moved from one to another, it is a subjective awareness that is Awakened and [through point of view] perceived from to another, while simultaneously Transcendent of all, yet appearing As all.

You got your definition of 'Guru' from microsoft? I showed the etymology of the word, you gave a new age definition, not I .

Now you and I are finding common ground. If the Guru does not perceive separation, then the Guru sees that (him/herself is bodily still suffering - because there is Only One body, One consciousness) suffering is still present. This falls in line with the Bodhisattva concept. And within the sub definitions of that, I am not finished until All Is finished. You will see a concept in Enbrightenment about Babblon. This is the Bodhisattva aspect of my personality. I babblon and on forever, repeating new and old zingers to capture the Eye of the Disciples of God. Never tiring of talking about God and truth, and never tiring of suffering with the world.

a simple definition would be living and relating to all existence through the transcendent conscious state of the eternal God.

This is where you choose to mix up random science to fit with your criticisms, but science supports my proposition, and the theory of esoteric consciousness behind it. That definition has Very Real correlations with reality. Quantum theory proposes a non-local theory of consciousness, transcendent of the appearing universe, yet fundamentally inter-connected and creatively inter-active.

The first quote contains a contradiction. Will you explain this away as contradiction, paradoxical or something else? If reality is 'unconditional' the second part of the first quote/sentence does not follow. If reality is unconditional, then your second quote does not correlate with the first.

This is where the non-sensical comes into play. I have laid out first that I clearly know there are appearing differences, but I also acknowledge that play to lack subject or object. Please be a bit more clarifying with your comments, thanks.

 

Again, is it helpful to depreciate the power of the mind?

I don't see a new age method, I see a new age vernacular that substitutes for substance.

In simple terms you see others needs as identical to your own.

gu·ru [g r]
(plural gu·rus)
n
1. Hindu or Sikh religious teacher: in Hinduism and Sikhism, a religious leader or teacher
2. leader of religious group: a spiritual leader or intellectual guide for a religious group or movement, especially one considered not to be mainstream
3. influential expert: somebody who has a reputation as an expert leader, teacher, or practitioner in a particular field
a meeting of the world's software gurus
a style guru

4. revered teacher and counselor: a person's revered guide, mentor, or adviser in spiritual or intellectual matters


[Early 17th century. < Sanskrit , "elder, teacher"]
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


It is important to note that all history is living tissue, all tales told in the present.

Understand that there are no idle thoughts. Is there something that separates us after all? What went before, uncommon ground?

So you entertain a common conception. What do you mean sees that they are still suffering. One could only think that they were free from suffering if they considered themselves special.

To de-fine is to make gross. Is your purpose to make distinctions or share the conception of oneness?

I let you in on a simple thing. You are relating over the internet. No one can hear you from transcendent spaces. The transcendent is beyond perception.
Vacuous terms are not simple definitions.

No, I am building on your statements.

Perhaps you did not see my statement, reality is non-local, nor is it remote.
I don't blame you if you missed it, it is natural for situational awareness to diminish when seeking compliance instead of understanding. At this moment you are defending the idea that you represent substantial authority.

My observation is, the I am I call myself is the same I am you call your self and that all things share a magnanimous intent and that is, to be.

 

I will fill it out this way, Reality is without condition, that is, it does not make a conditional arrangement on emergence. The word condition coming from a root to "speak with". That is, no place is any more real than any other place, no phenomena in truth, more significant than any other. The thing that makes transience practically significant to us is the breath.

Words are symbols chosen to represent corridors of mental refraction.

Another way to say this is the whole defines the parts but the parts do not define the whole. This is not contradictory but describes a law without opposites.

Usually when people who have something to discuss first meet, there is a "coming to terms", or developing a common vocabulary. We don't automatically know what each other means even though we may be speaking the same language. Consider the word symbols that we use to represent truth are identical in form, to those we use to spread disinformation. Just ask questions so that we do not mis-understand each other.

For instance you use the term guru in an uncommon way, as an indiscriminating conduit for information. I can see no reason for this definition, unless it be to obliquely claim to be an enlightened being.

 

You certainly are having issue with that communication, but there are some that do not. Transcendent does not mean beyond awareness.

Nothing to see here move along.

You apply the definition of Guru as you like.

Regarding, the idea of suffering, there are people suffering the separative idea/motive of consciousness. Whether you choose to use terminology to set my communication up as hierarchical or not is your interpretation. You choose the words to use here, and the motive is clear.

 

Tis philosophically, climbing or going beyond some philosophical concept or limit. All philosophical concepts or limits, are perceptions.

This statement says nothing. Do you have something specific to say regarding the information put forth?

I came here addressing your invitation to give a critique of your efforts thus far. Did you desire instead, someone to simply agree with you? I am putting your metal to the pedal so to speak. Present your breadth of understanding,
TEACH.

My motive is honest and penetrating communication. Is there some other clarity you can lend to my motives?

 

The invitation is for a critique of Enbrightenment, not to 'critique of your (my) effort thus far'. I have clarified my communication of the word. It does not matter how you interpret this, it is not about you adhering to my definition, the question refers to how it is defined in Enbrightenment. Unless you are confused about what is really at the heart of my invitation, and that is a critique of Enbrightenment.

Not quite.

 

So the moral is that we all interpret reality differently

 

Just so I am clear, "Enbrightenment", is a product of your efforts is it not?

Please, by all means clarify what my my purpose is.

 

This is the tendency of perspective consciousness. Many rivers into the ocean; and within Enbrightenment, both are acknowledged. The river being the individual path, and the Heart motive born moment to moment in that person, and the ocean is the Undifferentiated Perfect Nature of Pristine Consciousness.

Yet, the fundamental Oneness of our Divine nature dictates the reality of inter-communication. This is the reason why the idea of conversion finds no ground within the teachings. Nothing to convert, simply Realize the One and Only Reality, wholly and fully, As the undifferentiated Divine Only. Realize Self, and the process of spiritual growth and practice will then be supported by a fundamental change in the disposition of the bodily consciousness and awareness. Without the support of (at least) a Faith based Realization of the One and Only, all a person is doing (when they think they are practicing spirituality) is repeating the same old search, the same old seeking mechanism that left the body/mind in a conscious state ignorant of the Fullness of God's Divine Presence.

 

And this is a statement formed of "perspective consciousness"

If there is nothing to convert then there is no reason for a teaching, a teaching is presented as a method of conversion from ignorance.

If it were simple to realize, there wouldn't be so many different versions of the "One and Only Reality"

I highlighted every instance of inappropriate capitalization which represent a measure of "faith based" thinking. These representations are exactly what you are riling about. Just because you capitalize a word does not make it the automatic bearer of esoteric wisdom.